* Jean Delvare <khali@linux-fr.org> [2007-01-07 12:30:13 +0100]:> Hi Adrian,> > On Sat, 6 Jan 2007 00:29:13 +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:> > While looking at the code, I also noted the following:> > > > quirk_sis_96x_compatible() is pretty useless since all it does is to set > > a static variable that is only used in a printk().> > > > quirk_sis_96x_compatible() was added with:> > > > > > 2003/05/13 13:48:50-07:00 mhoffman> > [PATCH] i2c: Add SiS96x I2C/SMBus driver> > > > This patch adds support for the SMBus of SiS96x south> > bridges. It is based on i2c-sis645.c from the lm sensors> > project, which never made it into an official kernel and> > was anyway mis-named.> > > > This driver works on my SiS 645/961 board vs w83781d.> > > > > > It's usage in> > > > > > static void __init quirk_sis_503_smbus(struct pci_dev *dev)> > {> > if (sis_96x_compatible)> > quirk_sis_96x_smbus(dev);> > }> > > > > > Was removed in> > > > > > Author: torvalds <torvalds>> > Date: Thu Oct 30 19:03:38 2003 +0000> > > > Stop SIS 96x chips from lying about themselves.> > > > Some machines with the SIS 96x southbridge have it set up> > to claim it is a SIS 503 chip. That breaks irq routing logic> > among other things. Fix it properly by making everybody aware> > of the duplicity.> > > > > > Was this intentional (and quirk_sis_96x_compatible() should be removed), > > or is this a bug that should be fixed?> > I noticed this too in April 2006, see:> http://lists.lm-sensors.org/pipermail/lm-sensors/2006-April/016016.html> > Quoting myself back then:> "The whole sis_96x_compatible stuff looks superfluous now. It was used> before 2.6.0-test10, but we could certainly get rid of it now."> > I do not think there is a bug here, or someone would have complained by> now. Note though that I do not have a SiS-based motherboard to test on.> Mark may be able to help with testing.

It's just cruft from the original quirk. The "compatible" printk could havehad value as a diagnostic in case the new quirk didn't work for some reason,but I never saw any complaints about it (apart from the link order problem,which is something different.) It's safe to remove by now.